Are reviews of new models independent or not?

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

you can appeal all you want for those last few nuggets of information you need to complete your masterwork and commonly get no response; yet when you finally say “that’ll just have to do”, and pass it to a publisher, and it gets into print, all of a sudden the ‘experts’ will come out of the woodwork and be all over you like a rash. 

 

Indeed, making a wrong statement is the most effective route to discovering the truth.

 

But you can see the logic? Why should I give up my hard-won knowledge to someone who is going to use it to get credit for themselves? Better that I reveal it once it gives credit to me and makes them look a fool. Except that that way of carrying on does not in the long run put me in a creditable light.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

Genuine question, has any reviewer noted that the KR Models Fell has glaring inaccuracies?

The 'Model Rail' review noted some of them but was no doubt a difficult review to write as there is a need for much greater care with language and structure  of a review when including criticism than it is when writing wholesome praise.  In contrast 'Hornby Magazine',  so I understand. described one of the the most obvious errors on the model as not being an error at all. 🙂

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Building the (real) "Fell" in the first place, was probably the error...

 

Apparently when I was in my pram I was taken to see the trains passing by. As that was on the line between Derby and Trent (which the Fell frequented at the time), I wonder if I can count it as an unconscious "cop"?

Edited January 5, 2023 by Peter Kazmierczak

[Steamport Southport]

6 hours ago, MarkSG said:

Of course, if it's fiction, then facts don't matter anyway.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Write something wrong in anything to do with any of the major book, TV or movie franchises and you'll soon get a few million geeks jumping on you!

 

And I can safely say that railway enthusiasts are a lot more affable than the obsessives who follow many of these franchises. Even the original authors and directors get it in the neck if they make a mistake!

 

 

Jason

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I beg to differ.

 

Write something wrong in anything to do with any of the major book, TV or movie franchises and you'll soon get a few million geeks jumping on you!

 

And I can safely say that railway enthusiasts are a lot more affable than the obsessives who follow many of these franchises. Even the original authors and directors get it in the neck if they make a mistake!

 

 

Jason

I can recall a popular science fiction writer who wrote about the time, he got exposed for an error in one of his books. The first edition had the Earth rotating the wrong way!

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Building the (real) "Fell" in the first place, was probably the error...

 

Apparently when I was in my pram I was taken to see the trains passing by. As that was on the line between Derby and Trent (which the Fell frequented at the time), I wonder if I can count it as an unconscious "cop"?

 

At the risk of taking the thread off topic I think the Fell is one of the most maligned locomotives ever built. When we consider whether it was wise to build it or not people will generally be heavily influenced by knowledge of subsequent technology development and the fact the electric drive became the default transmission solution for diesel locomotives, with some significant application of hydraulic transmission. However, when the Fell was built it was less clear and mech-drive was clearly a potential way forward (and actually, although there are issues with mech-drive it is a very efficient way to transmit power from the engine to the wheel or propeller). If you want to do a mech-drive arrangement then engine power-torque characteristics become critical and unless you can play with torque delivery you end up needing to use variable transmission ratios which becomes very expensive for large applications. The alternative is to play with the combustion process which you can do by boosting charge air pressure at the low end, however to do that you need large blowers and they can't be normal turbo-chargers because you don't have the necessary exhaust energy.. So using engine driven blowers is an entirely logical and very clever solution to make a mech-drive work. The fact it was a dead end doesn't detract from the fact it was a clever design and engineering needs such dead ends to test hypotheses. Even today with all the modelling tools we have a lot of technology proving and demonstration machines are built to do the same.

[jjb1970]

I do get some of the scepticism, I really don't think it is an issue in our hobby (if anything, hatchet job reviews seem more likely than shill reviews from the amateur reviewer segment) but in other sectors where significant sums are involved paid 'influencers' are now endemic. This is not necessarily all bad. If a hi-fi, technology, car, watch review or whatever states that they were flown off for a luxury junket product launch, flown to some far flung beauty spot to do a test drive, received it as a freebie, gets luxury holidays to review hotels, are a paid consultant, accepts significant sponsorship payments or whatever then it's up front and the reader/viewer can keep that in mind when considering the review. Unfortunately not all reviewers do this, a magazine just decides to arrange an expensive photoshoot in South Africa or such like, an audio reviewer is paid by a retailer for the products being reviewed without making it clear etc. For obvious reasons these sort of tactics tend to be associated with products where reasonable sums of money are involved, and even there for reviewers to be worth supporting they have to have a certain credibility to influence anybody ('influences' who can't influence aren't useful to anybody). In audio gear a good indicator is whether any measured data is shown in support of opinions, usually reviewers who make the effort to take measurements are more knowledgeable and less likely to just spin a good yarn (some audio gear reviews can be entertaining for the wrong reasons).

[BachelorBoy]

10 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

 

Hello Mark

 

Exactly. I have a photo (somewhere) of an S&D 7F 2-8-0 in Prussian Blue where the colour on the tender is 'affected' by the coldness of the water. It looks like two different shades of blue between water tank and coal space!

 

Brian

 

But if you modelled it that way, people would say it was inaccurate. 

 

 

[Oldddudders]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I can recall a popular science fiction writer who wrote about the time, he got exposed for an error in one of his books. The first edition had the Earth rotating the wrong way!

The Earth rotates? Now that would explain a few things - thanks!

[Yarravalleymodeller]

31 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

The Earth rotates? Now that would explain a few things - thanks!

I shall have to report this post for misinformation, we all know the earth is a flat dinner plate full of yummy human morsels held up by a 5 armed waiter named Duncan in the restraunt Evolutionary Eats located on the planet Vennms. A very special restaurant where you may order one of the best primordial soups on offer  and await the delights that evolve as it travels to your table. 

[MarkSG]

8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I beg to differ.

 

Write something wrong in anything to do with any of the major book, TV or movie franchises and you'll soon get a few million geeks jumping on you!

 

Does it reduce sales, though?

 

If the answer is "no", then my point stands: in fiction, facts don't matter. At least, not in the only aspect of publishing fiction that the publishers have any concern about.

[MarkSG]

16 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Exactly. I have a photo (somewhere) of an S&D 7F 2-8-0 in Prussian Blue where the colour on the tender is 'affected' by the coldness of the water. It looks like two different shades of blue between water tank and coal space!

 

If you ever dig that photo out, it would great to see a copy.

[BMacdermott]

3 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

If you ever dig that photo out, it would great to see a copy.

Hello Mark

 

I'll try.

 

(The difficulty is that it might have been one that was in my possession when I was Assistant Editor of the SDRT Bulletin magazine and was returned after publication to the photographer. It's just that I have an abiding memory of the photo - but wasn't expecting to need to use it for this purpose maybe 35 years ago when I first saw it. 🙂)

 

Brian

[Yarravalleymodeller]

7 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 For obvious reasons these sort of tactics tend to be associated with products where reasonable sums of money are involved, and even there for reviewers to be worth supporting they have to have a certain credibility to influence anybody ('influences' who can't influence aren't useful to anybody). In audio gear a good indicator is whether any measured data is shown in support of opinions, usually reviewers who make the effort to take measurements are more knowledgeable and less likely to just spin a good yarn (some audio gear reviews can be entertaining for the wrong reasons).

Measurement is an interesting thing. To someone who isn't particularly up to scratch on measurement methods and the faults that can develope along the way by getting one step here or there wrong in order to come to that final piece of measured information any measurement is a good measurement. The length of the piece of string comes to mind, how interested and invested the person personally is in knowing the length of the piece of string will dictate how much scrutiny they place on the measurement of the piece of string and this allows for some placement of different levels of expert in the length of string at different points on the spectrum of potential consumers of the information regarding the length of the piece of string. 

 

You can easily end up with a situation where someone with no interest in furthering the knowledge of the length of the piece of string sets up business providing the length of the piece of string to people who may not openly wish to know the length of the piece of string and will happily settle to know this version of the length of the piece of string and get stuck here to the detriment of their progression of knowledge of the length of the piece of string and to the great benefit of this provider of string related data who then also feels no need to improve their knowledge of the piece of string or their output on the piece of string. This new entrant to the piece of string measurement data market unwittingly creates a situation where they hold back the human potential that might be unleased, sorry, unstrung by furthering peoples understanding of the length of the piece of string which has a knock on effect moving up the market for data on the length of a piece of string where returns deminish at the top due to ever decreasing upward mobility of new seekers of more accurate data on the length of a piece of string creating a downward pressure to reduce data on the length of a piece of string into simpler forms that serve this less interested less mobile market which creates a situation where good data becomes a scarce resource over data that says what the market wants to hear. We suffer stagnation, we see people strung up for highlighting this by people strung along by it. 

 

Can I say one more word, string. 🤣

Edited January 6, 2023 by Yarravalleymodeller

[scottystitch]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The 'Model Rail' review noted some of them but was no doubt a difficult review to write as there is a need for much greater care with language and structure  of a review when including criticism than it is when writing wholesome praise.  In contrast 'Hornby Magazine',  so I understand. described one of the the most obvious errors on the model as not being an error at all. 🙂

I don't think it even needs to be written as a criticism, though, does it?  Wouldn't it be acceptable, or even desirable, to just tell it like it is. 

 

"Unusually, the locomotive has been modelled with the two sides of the body reflecting two different periods in it's life.  There are also some inaccuracies with regard placement of panels, equipment, etc.  If this is the kind of thing that bothers you, then it may require some consideration prior to purchase, although the former may allow the locomotive to be run semi-accurately in two different time periods."

 

Or words to that effect.

 

Best

Scott. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by scottystitch

[eldomtom2]

Something that I don't think's been mentioned, but that I think is definitely worth mentioning and probably explains a lot of stuff about the Fell reviews, is that if you're an actual reviewer - that is, someone who buys or is given models for the primary purpose of reviewing them - as opposed to someone who reviews items bought for other reasons you're probably going to be in a situation where you have to review a model of something that's outside your area of expertise. Something like performance is easy enough to determine, but an inaccuracy is something you'll only know if you know the prototype. Obviously this can be mitigated somewhat if you're a magazine with multiple reviewers, but you're unlikely to have an expert in everything.

 

And of course, if you're familiar with the prototype you're probably going to have a more negative view of any inaccuracies on the model.

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, eldomtom2 said:

if you're familiar with the prototype you're probably going to have a more negative view of any inaccuracies on the model.

 

But you won't be the average modeller that most reviews are aimed at. I remember once commenting in MREmag editorial, that the Hornby Class 31 was a good model and the next day recieved a very long list of its faults, from some who pretty much lived for the class (Apparently, the old Airfix version with fake centre wheels was a much better model). If you live for a particular prototype, you certainly will care deeply about anything you consider an error, taking each one very personally. However, unless your review is aimed at this very, very tiny readership/viewership, then going into the nth degree of detail isn't that helpful.

 

Truth is, I suspect, the photos have a dispraportionate influence amoung average modellers who basicaly decide if they like the look of a model, and if they do, buy it.

[Yarravalleymodeller]

5 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Something that I don't think's been mentioned, but that I think is definitely worth mentioning and probably explains a lot of stuff about the Fell reviews, is that if you're an actual reviewer - that is, someone who buys or is given models for the primary purpose of reviewing them - as opposed to someone who reviews items bought for other reasons you're probably going to be in a situation where you have to review a model of something that's outside your area of expertise. Something like performance is easy enough to determine, but an inaccuracy is something you'll only know if you know the prototype. Obviously this can be mitigated somewhat if you're a magazine with multiple reviewers, but you're unlikely to have an expert in everything.

 

And of course, if you're familiar with the prototype you're probably going to have a more negative view of any inaccuracies on the model.

You need not necessarily know everything as a base point only have a good understanding of how to go about finding pertinent information of which there is thanks to this interconnected web of devices we are on now an even greater ease than ever of finding. Thankfully the model its self also affords you chances to find things more easily: it ran in this livery, okay so what time period, okay so find photographs within that time frame, okay now play spot the difference. It is perhaps naive to think that anyone knows everything there is to know about anything and thus the question shouldn't be how much does the person know when we come to assess the value of their opinion it should be how much willingness and effort do they put in to know as much as they reasonably can given what information is likely available which as above is what the French would term a sh*t load. And we are not talking about secondary source information we are talking primary source photographs you can cross reference to assure the date is correct in all but a few cases for most major classes and major railways for the majority of periods and subject matters covered by ready to run items.(this is as far as locomotives go, obviously carriages and wagons... not so much because people tended not to run around taking pictures of specific wagons or carriages) 

[Phil Parker]

10 minutes ago, Yarravalleymodeller said:

It is perhaps naive to think that anyone knows everything there is to know about anything and thus the question shouldn't be how much does the person know when we come to assess the value of their opinion it should be how much willingness and effort do they put in to know as much as they reasonably can given what information is likely available which as above is what the French would term a sh*t load.

 

Which will partly determined by the return on that investment in time and research materials. It would be lovely to spend a day in the NRM library for every single model, but realistically, for magazine work, there's nothing like that luxury of time. Nor do many of us have an enormous collection of books and photos covering every possible prototype. Sometimes you have someone who is an expert in an area - Tony Wright can cover the LNER for example, but he'd struggle with London Underground.

 

Online reviews may be different. You will aquire only the models you are interested in, so you will be likely to have a pile of research you've already done. Or you simply just film opening the box and read the sides... 😉

[Yarravalleymodeller]

4 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Which will partly determined by the return on that investment in time and research materials. It would be lovely to spend a day in the NRM library for every single model, but realistically, for magazine work, there's nothing like that luxury of time. Nor do many of us have an enormous collection of books and photos covering every possible prototype. Sometimes you have someone who is an expert in an area - Tony Wright can cover the LNER for example, but he'd struggle with London Underground.

 

Online reviews may be different. You will aquire only the models you are interested in, so you will be likely to have a pile of research you've already done. Or you simply just film opening the box and read the sides... 😉

Realistically you don't even need to go to the NRM, there's this thing called google images, seriously stuffed with plenty of images to get a very reasonable understanding of what you are looking at on the desk vs what existed at a given time. 

 

The idea that owning the model also makes the review any better is... interesting when you delve into how it might effect your perceptions of value of that model... every model you buy kinda devalues any use you may have for every other model you own. We only have so much track, so much time, if you buy literally more models than you can enjoy within those two limitations then your opinion of any of them and the value of them begins to suffer consciously or subconsciously. What value has it once a certain point is passed beyond a thing to review. It's sentimental value is limited to your familiarity and emotional investment in the real thing or some connection born of a past experience with a previous iteration of it and from here it just slides into a review mired in the fact you paid for it, not improved by the fact you paid for it. There becomes a subconscious or concious imperative to maximise the return on any  information you trade with you viewer in exchange for their viewing your review that comes at the expense of maximising the information exchanged in that transaction because that is just further effort put into something that rather than representing a more ethereal emotional value is now just an item you need to make your investment back on. 

 

The modeller, be it someone from P4 or someone playing with it on a loop of track experiences an utterly different construct of value to the person buying it just to make their money back on it. The end result is usually a review where an undue weight is placed on cost, a lack of valuable information is present, and the transaction becomes one devoid of much use mainly because the person purchased the model.

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, Yarravalleymodeller said:

Realistically you don't even need to go to the NRM, there's this thing called google images, seriously stuffed with plenty of images to get a very reasonable understanding of what you are looking at on the desk vs what existed at a given time. 

 

So a plan with some dimensions on isn't useful? You'd be hard put to tell is the wheelbase is slightly off from photos found on Google.

[AY Mod]

4 minutes ago, Yarravalleymodeller said:

there's this thing called google images,

 

Well done on being patronising, we do know what we're doing. A basic Google image search won't give you a lot before it heads off on alternatives; it's better to know the sites that are likely to have the type of images you need and a wide slelection e.g. Paul Bartlett's wagon shots for that era where better detail is captured rather than the cursory stuff you'll find on a basic search.

[Yarravalleymodeller]

Just now, Phil Parker said:

 

So a plan with some dimensions on isn't useful? You'd be hard put to tell is the wheelbase is slightly off from photos found on Google.

But, and this is basically the case for 99% of things you see produced ready to run, there are readily available data sheets online that will tell you what the wheel spacing should be. I struggle to think of any thing produced that would come up against much issue to finding its wheel spacing listed online with a very very good chance of being able to be cross referenced and established to be good information. 

[Compound2632]

There is such a thing as a hierarchy of authority, from primary sources (records, drawings, etc, held in archives such as the NRM, and indeed dated photographs) through secondary sources (chiefly books based on research using primary sources) to tertiary sources (a random sample of unsorted information thrown up by an internet search, or the opinion of one's mate down the pub). As @Phil Parker says, it's unreasonable to expect a reviewer working to magazine deadlines to engage with primary sources but I would hope that they had access to a good range of secondary sources.

 

My view is coloured by being the descendant of librarians. I don't know stuff but I do know how to go about looking stuff up.

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, Yarravalleymodeller said:

But, and this is basically the case for 99% of things you see produced ready to run, there are readily available data sheets online that will tell you what the wheel spacing should be. I struggle to think of any thing produced that would come up against much issue to finding its wheel spacing listed online with a very very good chance of being able to be cross referenced and established to be good information. 

 

A plan tells you much more than just the wheel spacing. Sorry, I was just using that as a single example, I should have made myself clearer.